GeForce GTX 260 vs Radeon R9 270X
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R9 270X and GeForce GTX 260, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R9 270X outperforms GTX 260 by a whopping 303% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 438 | 803 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.04 | 0.14 |
| Power efficiency | 4.92 | 1.21 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla 2.0 (2007−2013) |
| GPU code name | Curacao | GT200 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 8 October 2013 (11 years ago) | 16 June 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $199 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the performance-to-price ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices for comparison.
R9 270X has 3500% better value for money than GTX 260.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1280 | 192 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 576 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 1050 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 1,400 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 182 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 84.00 | 36.86 |
| Floating-point processing power | 2.688 TFLOPS | 0.4769 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 28 |
| TMUs | 80 | 64 |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | no data |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | no data | 267 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (111 mm) (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 2 x 6-pin | 2x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | + |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 896 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 448 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | no data | 999 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 111.9 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| HD3D | + | - |
| LiquidVR | + | - |
| TressFX | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| UVD | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK compatibility
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 1.2 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
Full HD
Medium Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+342%
|
24−27
−342%
|
Full HD
High Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 65−70
+306%
|
16−18
−306%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 170−180
+325%
|
40−45
−325%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
| Fortnite | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 5 | 35−40
+311%
|
9−10
−311%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 40−45
+340%
|
10−11
−340%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| Metro Exodus | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+342%
|
24−27
−342%
|
Full HD
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 50−55
+333%
|
12−14
−333%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 24−27
+380%
|
5−6
−380%
|
| Dota 2 | 80−85
+344%
|
18−20
−344%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+322%
|
9−10
−322%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 50−55
+317%
|
12−14
−317%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 21−24
+320%
|
5−6
−320%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 30−35
+343%
|
7−8
−343%
|
| Valorant | 100−110
+342%
|
24−27
−342%
|
Full HD
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 65−70
+331%
|
16−18
−331%
|
1440p
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 21−24
+340%
|
5−6
−340%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 85−90
+324%
|
21−24
−324%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 18−20
+350%
|
4−5
−350%
|
| Metro Exodus | 14−16
+367%
|
3−4
−367%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 80−85
+367%
|
18−20
−367%
|
| Valorant | 120−130
+323%
|
30−33
−323%
|
1440p
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 30−35
+357%
|
7−8
−357%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 10−11
+400%
|
2−3
−400%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 24−27
+317%
|
6−7
−317%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 27−30
+367%
|
6−7
−367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14
+333%
|
3−4
−333%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 16−18
+325%
|
4−5
−325%
|
1440p
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 24−27
+333%
|
6−7
−333%
|
4K
High Preset
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+360%
|
5−6
−360%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 8−9
+700%
|
1−2
−700%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+400%
|
3−4
−400%
|
| Valorant | 60−65
+350%
|
14−16
−350%
|
4K
Ultra Preset
| Battlefield 5 | 16−18
+433%
|
3−4
−433%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 7−8
+600%
|
1−2
−600%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 4−5 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+330%
|
10−11
−330%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 12−14
+500%
|
2−3
−500%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 20−22
+400%
|
4−5
−400%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7
+500%
|
1−2
−500%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
4K
Epic Preset
| Fortnite | 10−12
+450%
|
2−3
−450%
|
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.62 | 2.88 |
| Recency | 8 October 2013 | 16 June 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 896 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 180 Watt | 182 Watt |
R9 270X has a 303.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 357.1% higher maximum VRAM amount, a 132.1% more advanced lithography process, and 1.1% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R9 270X is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce GTX 260 in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
